'Problematize' and Academic Discourse

The word "problematize" gave rise to the following discussion about itsmeaning and usefulness and the role of jargon in academic discourse. Thediscussion took place on WMST-L in February/March 2000. For additionalWMST-L files now available on the Web, see the WMST-L File List.

And I'll weigh in on the side of the word "problematize." I would thinkthe word "operationalize" would mean "to put into operation," wh/ is notthe entire question she's exploring; problematize, whether it appears inthe latest dictionaries or not, is generally understood to mean "toquestion and consider whether it is either a cause or symptom of largerproblems," as far as I know, and we don't have another single word forthat concept. I'm not a big fan of many new words ("wellness" still givesme the shivers), but this one I think serves a useful purpose.Karen Weekeskweekes @ parallel.park.uga.edu

This relates to the question about "problematizing" though doesn'tspecifically spin on that word.Isn't this a curious thing about our language -- and our need to defineentire concepts into one word? Part if it is to simplify our lives, makesthings quicker, "universal" labels or quick identifications to issues,realities, concepts, ideologies, etc. Can this be done? Why do "we" as anacademic community continually perpetuate our own trap-setting byinsisting one word should contain an entire dialog? We'll only addqualifying adjectives anyway!(liberal feminism, radical feminism, etc.)I know women and oppressed communities want to participate in the namingbut I often wonder why we have to continue this in one-word options. Isit only about time/quickness/single referent point or something else? Whydo we continue to make big -- often exclusionary -- vocabulary or lingorather than describing accessibly what we each really mean when we'retalking about certain things. Postmodernists might say the language issuch that we'll never truly be able to say what we mean -- I don't knowthat I agree but it does seem that one-word naming of very large conceptscreate part of the tensions, misconceptions, misunderstandings and/ortendencies to universalize.Mev++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++Women's Presses Library Project..keeping women's words in circulationMev Miller, Project Coordinator1483 Laurel Ave.St. Paul, MN 55104-6737651-646-0097651-646-1153 /faxwplp @ winternet.com

Hi, Womonwriters,I'll add my vote for the use of "problematize." I know it soundsjargon-ish, but it is one of those words that, when I firstheard it, a light bulb went off in my head -- ah, ha! Here's a wordthat can be a neat tool.CharleneM. Charlene Ball, Administrative CoordinatorWomen's Studies InstituteGeorgia State UniversityAtlanta, Georgia 30303-3083404/651-4633404/651-1398 faxwsimcb @ panther.gsu.eduhttp://www.gsu.edu/womenpower

I don't see this yearning for a large-concept word as a problem nor as asolution, but as an aid. Many words -- maybe most words -- function thisway. The word "family" certainly means different concepts in differentcultures by the time we spin out any details. So does the color"blue." When I use large-concept words I am trying to locate an arena,not be exact or specific. Words are an illustration of a mathematicalconcept: if I can travel only halfway there, I will never reach mydestination. True enough. But at some point I am so close that theremaining distance is insignificant. Further, what counts asinsignificant, (in other words, the number of times I must split thedifference before feeling stisfied) is relative and depends upon variousmeasures, i.e., context.I would agree with your assessment, that postmodernists might believewe will never be able to say exactly what we mean -- but that seems OKwith me. Language itself is only one way to describe anotheridea/event/concept, but it is not the idea/event/concept. It is atranslation of sorts, one way in which we try to relate/communicate withone another and ourselves. And one word does, it seems, "hold" a wholedialogue, but the dialog is not within the word. It is in the spacebetween the word (a marker) and the readers (the interpreters), thatdialogue being quite different depending on the space itself as much as(but not instead of) the word or the readers. Like the activity ofjumping rope, the word may be one end, the readers another, and both mustbe held for the activity to take place, but the activity is jumping, andeach jumper does it differently.I would disagree that it is "language" that steers our need to defineentire concepts in one word. Language doesn't do this. We do. Andacademicians find particular fun in that game. But it is a game whoserules shift. We could, indeed, allow these words to be acceptable asdemarcations rather than definitions, a start rather than an end to aconversation. And my experience is that they do.It tickles me to hear a word excluded or devalued because it does notappear in a dictionary. All words are just made up, and if people areusing them, and others are understanding various uses of them, then theyare words by definition. It seems awfully hierarchical to assume it mustbe passed on by a body of "official" people, in order to exist. If weadopted this belief about actions, then many of the experiences of womenwould not exist, and we would be compliant in their non-existence.Words are fun. They're meant to help us be with each other in aparticular way. They should not be given the power to rule us withoutfurther thought. Use "problematize" if it is useful to you and yourreaders, find another word -- or make one up -- if it is not.Gill Wright Millermillerg @ denison.eduAssociate Professor of Dance and Women's Studies

<< What about "discuss"? It's more open ended, whereas "problematize" in a way anticipates the result. >>I am not sure that "discuss" conveys the same meaning; "problematize" assomeone mentioned earlier, means "to complicate" and I think it makes perfectsense the way it was used in the original message--she is looking for waysthe word "choice" is complicated (i.e. problematized) by other meanings. Itmay not be in the dictionaries yet, but the word sure is used a lot incontemporary social research. The word "marginalized" still isn't in manydictionaries either and we've been using it for years!Victoria Hecklervdheckler @ aol.com

I think this discussion of "problematize" is quite interesting; however, myunderstanding of the original post was that the poster wanted literaturethat does just that: discusses "choice" as a problematic concept. Thatnotion seems plausible no matter what side of the debate we find ourselves."Choice" is a complex, multidimensional concept which is bound to haveproblematic facets to its nature, no?LisaLBurke2 @ njcu.edu

Re problematize: What's wrong with "make problematic."But I guess there's what I see as an odd new use of "problematic," tomean "a problem" rather than "arguable" in the sense of "calling forfurther discussion" which is the way I always understood the word.I am not a purist trying to save the language from its speakers. Butwhy do we seem to need invent a new one when you already have aperfectly good old one? Leonora

i think this is important enough for one more reflection--particularlyas an associated issue that comes up for feminist scholars IS the elitenature and purposes of jargon, particularly of the academic variety--andit feels to me that this is the manufacture of yet another term/labelthat ends up separating "us" (who know the conferred meaning) from"them" (who don't)--following closely upon the "hegemony" thread whichdirectly addressed a dimension of this...i suggested "operationalize" since it's already a long-established partof broad, interdisciplinary (albeit academic/scientific) researchlanguage, meaning to express in a form that is usable for specificresearch purposes--which it seemed to me was what the original inquirywas seeking to do re the term "choice"...whether that works or not, i just think we all need to work hard atconscious avoidance of adding to our repertoires of "intellectualist"language and at conscious effort to UNlearn much of the institutionallanguage patterns we are trained into in the academic environment...debbie <louis @ umbc.edu>

Thanks to all who commented on my objection to the word "problematize."I especially like the synonym Jutta proposed: "To discuss."I think we need to be aware that most words ending in -ize (includingmarginalize and historicize) are just academic-jargon ways of expressingsimple ideas, such as feeling excluded or trying to understand the past.When we choose -ize/jargon words rather than simple language, we're sayingwe prefer academese over a language that communicates widely to all women.We're also being deliberately obscure and (face it) kinda boring.If we do that, we deserve to be marginalized (wry smile). Emily Toth Professor of English and Women's Studies Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 225-388-3152 English Dept. fax: 225-388-4129 etoth @ unix1.sncc.lsu.eduRECENT BOOKS BY EMILY TOTH: Ms. Mentor's Impeccable Advice for Women inAcademia (1997); Kate Chopin's Private Papers (1998); Unveiling Kate Chopin(1999) Visit Ms. Mentor's column: http://www.chronicle.com/jobs

Emily Toth writes:>>I think we need to be aware that most words ending in -ize (includingmarginalize and historicize) are just academic-jargon ways of expressingsimple ideas, such as feeling excluded or trying to understand the past.When we choose -ize/jargon words rather than simple language, we're sayingwe prefer academese over a language that communicates widely to all women.We're also being deliberately obscure and (face it) kinda boring.>>Bless you. I could not have said it better myself -- this issue is a hugethorn in my side on my journey to meld grassroots activism for women withwomen's studies at the graduate (and hopefully at some point doctoral)level.Jenn CrowellWS grad student, Towson University

<< When we choose -ize/jargon words rather than simple language, we're saying we prefer academese over a language that communicates widely to all women. >>Is there a language that communicates widely to ALL women? Although complexlanguage might be elitist in the sense that it is only accessible to thoseprivileged enough to interpret it, isn't it sometimes neccessary to use oreven create complex language to express complicated ideas? I can't imagine,for example, simplifying Joan Scott's use of "historicize" (from"Experience," in FEMINISTS THEORIZE THE POLITICAL) to mean simply"understanding the past." It just doesn't convey the same message to me.Where simplicity is due, perhaps, is in explaining how such language is used,not by substuting complex terms for simpler ones. There is no challenge inthe latter--not to the writer nor the reader--in essence, maybe making"academese" more widely accessible instead of assuming that the "average"woman might won't be able to understand it--that is where elitism comes intoplay.Admittedly though, I think that sometimes writers try to pass off incoherentwriting as brilliance.Victoria D. Hecklervdheckler @ aol.com

There is another issue at play here too that needs naming, although I'msure it won't be popular to do so because proper language eludes me. I'llexplain an analogy first -- to help myself.This is the story I am hearing in my body:In concert dance, "just walking" can be labeled worthy of respect andattention, carrying all sorts of meaning. That is true enough as an idea(a theory), but generally speaking it is only noticed as LegitimateConcert Dance if the performer has first proven herself worthy ofinvestigating "just walking."If she tries to perform "just walking" and it *appears* as "in lieu ofyears of training," critics are much more skeptical and less interested.No, it is the exquisite technician whose "just walking" dance getsreviewed, and it is a process of technical prowess gone public thensimplified that led critics to the choreographer in the first place.I am suggesting this idea for thought:Writing a complicated argument simply (and publishing it so that othershave access to it) is a privilege awarded those who have already shownthemselves capable of complicated, perhaps "jargonized," writing within aset of socialized rules. Coming to ideas and stating them in simple wayscan also carry the message that the writer is "not yet" sophisiticated,rather than is "appreciative" of simplifying.Those who choose never to write in a discourse's jargon might well havetrouble convincing higher-ups that their work is sufficiently "cuttingedge" to be taken seriously, and therefore might find few outlets fordoing more of it.Gill Wright Millermillerg @ denison.eduAssociate Professor of Dance and Women's StudiesDenison University

>From Gill Wright Miller:>I am suggesting this idea for thought:>Writing a complicated argument simply (and publishing it so that others>have access to it) is a privilege awarded those who have already shown>themselves capable of complicated, perhaps "jargonized," writing within a>set of socialized rules. Coming to ideas and stating them in simple ways>can also carry the message that the writer is "not yet" sophisiticated,>rather than is "appreciative" of simplifying.>Those who choose never to write in a discourse's jargon might well have>trouble convincing higher-ups that their work is sufficiently "cutting>edge" to be taken seriously, and therefore might find few outlets for>doing more of it.>What Gill Wright Miller is describing, and the description is honest, iswhat's told to grad students: learn the lingo or you won't be takenseriously. I was told that myself 25 years ago: "You'll never get a job ...you'll never get tenure ... because what you write is 'high journalism,'"Well, the man who told me that never got tenure. I did get jobs (I've beenhired in 4 different places over the years, 3 of them tenured/tenuretrack). I did get tenure, my eleventh book is coming out in April, andI've been able to write for a wide audience and make some difference foryounger women because I kept my accessible writing style.Also, you don't have to "earn" the "privilege" of writing when you writefor a wide audience. It's the quality of your writing that gets youpublished, and your ability to write with clarity--and ideally, with graceand humor as well.I appreciate all the contributions to this thread, and I hope thatfeminists will dedicate themselves/ourselves to language that reaches asmany women as possible. That's the only way we make significant changes. Emily Toth Professor of English and Women's Studies Louisiana State University Baton Rouge, LA 70803 225-388-3152 English Dept. fax: 225-388-4129 etoth @ unix1.sncc.lsu.eduRECENT BOOKS BY EMILY TOTH: Ms. Mentor's Impeccable Advice for Women inAcademia (1997); Kate Chopin's Private Papers (1998); Unveiling Kate Chopin(1999) Visit Ms. Mentor's column: http://www.chronicle.com/jobs

Fiona Young asked about the feminist use of the term "choice."In my recollection, the word "choice" as used as a euphemism for abortionrights was the result of a political battle in the late seventies in whichwomen's liberationists, socialist feminists in particular, defended theterm "reproductive freedom" (admittedly a far less catchy slogan). Theissues included:a) refusing to be "abortion-baited: using the term abortion rights whenappropriate and rejecting recourse to euphemism , refusing theabortion-as-a-necessary-evil position adopted defensively in the face ofthe religious rightb)broadening the issue, including issues such as opposition to abusivesterilization andc) contesting individual choice as a supreme valueDiedre English wrote a lovely journalistic piece on this question in thelate 70s early 80s, but I can't remember where (Seven Days? Mother Jones?).It was translated here in _Les Temps modernes_. I wrote a short articlein French a little after that in _La Nouvelle revue socialiste_ when theissue arose in France (Pro-choix is now used!).An important early philosophical treatment of the question is contained inRosalind Petchesky's _Abortion and Women's Choice: The State, Sexuality,and Reproductive Freedom_. Boston: Northeastern UP, 1985.)RegardsJudith Ezekiel ************ ezekiel @ univ-paris12.fr

Well, I'm impressed. I just received my daily digest, piled with responsesto my post on choice. Unfortunately only one person actually offered anysuggested reading materials (my thanks to the few who also emailed meprivately with suggestions). I have to say that the dialogue that followed my query has helped tosolidify many of my thoughts about the word choice being problematic - Istick by that word. Language is a living creature and while I am not a fanof many new words, sometimes the old words just don't sum up what needs tobe said. I consider the way the word 'choice' is used to be a problem formany reasons. Language changes, and words and concepts lose or changemeaning over time.>I think this discussion of "problematize" is quite interesting; however, my>>understanding of the original post was that the poster wanted literature>that does just that: discusses "choice" as a problematic concept. That>notion seems plausible no matter what side of the debate we find ourselves.>"Choice" is a complex, multidimensional concept which is bound to have>problematic facets to its nature, no?Thank you Lisa. My point exactly, but instead of discussing the wordchoice, everyone has been sidetracked. On the subject of academic language versus a language for all women...there is no universal women's language or if there is, I haven't found ityet. Since coming to grad. school, I have been struggling to find languagethat would be both acceptable in my papers and something my working-class,non-high school educated family in England could understand. I try to writein language that is accessible to my family, but it is not alwaysconsidered "suitable" language for academe (not my choice, but the rules ofthose who judge my work, and those already established in academe). Besideswhich, there are some concepts I would just not be able to articulateclearly. I'm sorry if this message has seemed sarcastic at times, but I do thinkit's interesting that so many academics spent so much time arguing over thelanguage of my question rather than answering the question itself. Theprivilege of the academy??? :-) FionaWomen's Studies Program,University of Iowa.Tel: (319) 354-2634E-mail:fiona-young @ uiowa.edu (English only)fionayoung @ hotmail.com (English and Japanese)

My English Dutch dictionary tells me that the affix -ize- or -ise- is generallyused in the English language to make a verb.But maybe *to question* is an effective synonym for 'to problematize'??Semiravidabo @ wanadoo.nlThe Netherlands

>From reading the various posts on this issue, which the original querierprobably thought was an innocent academic question (ah, but is anythingacademic innocent?), I find two main threads: pro-jargon andanti-jargon. And this in itself seems to bring up the issue of choice, solet's discuss "problematize" and "choice" together in this way for aminute (thanks for indulging me).One reason I do this is to take away the word "choice" from the abortionissue as exclusive terrain. Another reason is to bring to the foregroundthe fact (if there is a fact) that choice is ever-present in academicdebates--indeed, in all debates. Not only is there a choice between onepoint of view and another, but also there is a choice between taking astand and "merely" making a statement.I think the issue of "problematize" is equally fraught with choices. Dowe choose to be in conversation with our intellectual/educationalpeers or with a broader, somewhat less educated public? Do we choose tohave our work evaluated by our peers or by a larger public? Do we chooseto do work that is relevant in academe alone or do we do work that hasmore general application? Do we choose to write about our work in academicjournals or in the popular press? Indeed, do we choose to work and publishin an academic setting, with its inherent specialized and, some argue,exclusive jargon) or do we work and publish in a mix of venues bothacademic and general, using language that needs no footnotes?My choice has been to do both, because I hate binary choices and thustry to seek more ambiguous, fluid, adventurous and at times ambitious(read: risky academically) ways of dealing with the issues I research andwrite about. This in fact is my approach to choice as a rule: there shouldbe choice even if I hold a firm belief in one approach and despise theother, so that there will be a choice for me when the tables arereversed. This is the mark of a strong society, the ability to presentchoice and live with the consequences.Liora MorielComparative Literature Program2107 Susquehanna HallUniversity of MarylandCollege Park, MD 20742-8825"It is essential for the feminist critic to remember that Scripture has atno single moment in its history been a unified, monolithic text, hasalways been a radically layered, plurally authored, multiply motivatedcomposite, full of fascinating mysteries, gaps, and inconsistencies, agarden of delight to the exegete" -- Alicia Suskin Ostriker

On Mon, 28 Feb 2000, Deborah Louis wrote:> i suggested "operationalize" since it's already a long-established part> of broad, interdisciplinary (albeit academic/scientific) research> language, meaning to express in a form that is usable for specific> research purposes--which it seemed to me was what the original inquiry> was seeking to do re the term "choice"...Not exactly. "Operationalize" has a quantitative ring to it. Tooperationalize something is to make an abstraction into something you canmeasure, like turning "liberalism" into something you can show throughquestionnaire results on certain topics. I think "to problematize x"means "to show that x is not self-evident, or contains assumptions thatneed to be teased out of it." If it means all that (or something about aswindy), I can understand both why someone would want to make a single wordout of it, and why it's not a good idea.Marc Sacksmsacks @ world.std.comP.S. While we're on the subject of words, could someone please explain"interpellate" in plain English? Many thanks.

I still think "problematize" is okay, and I will still continue to use it."Discuss" suggests that we are talking within the boundaries ofwhat's assumed to be true. "Problematize" makes us look at thoseboundaries.For me, the word "problematize" opened up the possibility of challengingthe assumptions of someone who was saying something that had previouslyseemed unchallengeable. It rendered visible what had been invisiblebefore (or "transparent" to use another word accused of being jargonbut that also serves a useful purpose).For example, to say that we need to "problematize whiteness" is to saysomething entirely different from saying that we need to "discusswhiteness." And to say to "operationalize whiteness" -- what on earthwould that mean??M. Charlene Ball, Administrative CoordinatorWomen's Studies InstituteGeorgia State UniversityAtlanta, Georgia 30303-3083404/651-4633404/651-1398 faxwsimcb @ panther.gsu.eduhttp://www.gsu.edu/womenpower

Just for a bit of a different perspective on this thread, I'd like to sharea conversation with you all.Last night, I was talking on the phone with my mom. Now, my mom seems tome to be a pretty good example of an "average" woman (if there is such athing at all in the US). She's in her mid-50s, white, rural and workingclass, very proud of still being pretty, works in a factory and sells MaryKay makeup on the side, lives about a mile from the house in which she wasborn and has lived in the same county virtually all her life. She nevergraduated from high school (dropped out to get married at 16) and her onlypleasure reading is Better Homes and Gardens magazine. She uses theinternet to get quilt patterns, recipes, and really bad jokes that shesends along to me. She is also pro-choice.So we were talking about abortion rights, and "choice" (in another context)and I told her about this on-line discussion we are having about whetherfeminist academics should use words that non-academic people might not know.She asked, "what word are they talking about?""Problematize."She snorted (this is the only word I know to describe the nasal noise wemidwest farmwomen make when we think something is ridiculous). "It meansto make a problem out of something," she said.Then she said (and this is a recurring theme in conversations with myparents), "You know, Jeannie, that's the problem with everycollege-educated supervisor I've ever worked under. They don't give therest of us credit for being able to figure out anything."Now, I am all for de-jargoning academic language when the difficulty of thelanguage gets in the way of the meaning we want to convey. At the sametime, I do think it is important, sometimes, to use words (and to explainthem as appropriate) that are not "simple" if another word just won't do.At the same time, I think we need to start acknowledging that this is apolitical act against the expectations and value systems of the academy.And we need to stop claiming that we are doing this for the sake of "theaverage woman" because there is implied in that claim the idea that "she"wouldn't be able to understand us. I am issuing a gentle call for all ofus to remember that the average woman has experiences and intelligencesthat deserve our respect, and that we (women academics) might not be sodifferent or so far from her as we sometimes seem to think we are.(Just as an aside, I doubt that mom would have come up with the samedefinition for "operationalize." I didn't ask her because I hadn't seenthat post yet.)Respectfully submitted,Jeannie+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+"I always felt that, for every unwashed dish, for every unmade bed,another group of farmworkers got a dollar more." --Dolores Fernßndez Huerta, labor organizer, on charges that she neglected her responsibilities at home. NPR interview, 2/22/00Dr. Jeannie Ludlow jludlow @ bgnet.bgsu.eduCoordinator, Undergraduate Program (419)372-0176American Culture Studies101 East HallBowling Green State UniversityBowling Green OH 43403

This discussion reminded me of Susan Kopplemen's request for adefinition of the word "hegemony" and the wonderful responses thatfollowed concerning language usage. While the group of women from theretirement community would certainly jump at the chance to define"choice" as an accessible word, they may baulk at the "problematic."With apologies to Fiona Young for missing her original point, I havethoroughly enjoyed the resulting, fruitful dialogue . . . . :-)Sincerely,Peggy L. Richardsplr @ uakron.eduThe University of Akron

Dear listers-I'd like to take up your already too-consumed time with this idea and remarkon the post from Jeannie about her Mom.The argument against using "problematize" presupposes that that word is notpart of language outside of academia. Working in and outside that field, Idisagree. I am not even sure that everyone in Academia would necessarilydefine that word in the same way nor would they deem it elitist, so commonhas that word become.Rather than being academic jargon, the word "problematize" appears to me moreof a lowbrow convenience. It is an efficient word. But like every word itsdefinition and connotations are not immutable. It is charged in a way thatthe word "discuss" is not yet it seems less specialized than a word like"operationalize."As we bring the quotidian language into academia, I think it only fair thatwe take our "high brow" academic language into the world outside. Or is thelatter not part of diminishing the rigid boundaries between the 2 worlds?And the irony is that the spell check on my computer does not in any way wantto recognize that word in any language.Stephanie in Seattlechastainst @ cs.com

apologies to fiona young, who asked only for articles problematizingreproductive choice.words i have heard dismissed during this conversation: problematize,marginalize, historicize. i've been told we may replace these terms with"discuss," "operationalize," etc.jeannie's mom said, when asked what she thought "problematize" means:>"It means to make a problem out of something," she said.<jeannie's mom is wrong. what has been lost in this coversation is that theword "problematize," as used in the literary stuides community, originatesfrom the term "problematic" -- and problematize does *not* mean "to make averb of problem"; which is to say, problematize doesn't mean to make aproblem. it means to make a *problematic* of. problematic (noun) has aspecific meaning, and etymology; it's been in english since 1607, but wasre-coined by louis althusser, the french structural marxist theorist whoattacked humanism in the 1960's. from _critical theory since 1965_ (h.adams and l. searle, eds, up florida, 1986): "the problematic of the textis the unconscious infrastructure, the forms that detrmine how the textwill behave and can be allowed to be thought." from althusser: "we mustgo farther than the unmentioned presence of the thoughts of a living authorto the presence of his [sic] *potential* thoughts, to his [sic]*problematic*, that is, to the constitutive unity of the effective thoughtsthat make up the domain of the existing *ideological field* with which aparticular author must settle accounts in his own thought." in "english":to problematize is to analyze the problematic -- the material andtotalizing conditions -- over which a work is produced.jeannie's mom, whom i love very much because she is just like my father,which is why i so adore our christmas visits, also says:>"You know, Jeannie, that's the problem with every college-educated>supervisor I've ever worked under. They don't give the rest of us credit>for being able to figure out anything."<jeannie's mom is wrong in her diagnosis of the "problem." the problem isnot with education, but with those who have the power to construct thepublic *image* of intellectual activity (particularly as concerns the fieldof literary studies). now, i agree with emily toth that if she wants towrite "high journalism," she should still get tenure. i write same, andit's my view that too few literary studies people have a talent for takingcomplex notions, like "problematic," and translating them usefully to thelay public. those of us who are doing it should be promoted to fullprofessor just because we go to the incredible trouble this entails.*however*, and as jeannie herself suggests, jeannie's mom probably wouldnot object if a convention of scientists gathered in her city to discuss,among themselves, the complexity of curing cancer, using their ownprecisely coined "lingo" in order to talk to one another. indeed, i wanttwo things from my doctor: i want her to talk to her colleagues inwhatever "jargon" necessary for her to figure out what to do about thislump in my breast -- *and* i want her to be able to turn to me and explainin lay terms what the hell's wrong. (lest i be misread: i'm fine.)journalists struggle daily to explain complex genetic therapy projects onthe nightly news. in fact, most of our culture valorizes scientificlanguage, and scientific "progress," without challenge. meanwhile, ifsocial and language theorists speak in tongues, we're immediately dismissedas elitist. our society pooh-poohs the "progress" of radicalintellectuals, and disregards innovations in our understanding of thematerial and totalizing conditions that control society. gee. i wonderwhy the public doesn't want to hear about this. or who is preventing themfrom understanding. with what purpose.one effective way to *keep* the public from learning about our innovations,our progress, is to take words like "problematize" and erase their radicalmeanings. anti-intellectual liberals and conservative censors are unholyallies in this process of censorship. for instance, "historicize" isanother verb we have condemned here; interestingly, it too has a marxistorigin, attributable to hans robert jauss and others who have analyzedreception and culture. is there not a pattern here? if we leftists wereto take the word "capitalism" and work in the public arena to alter itsmeaning to "a horrific system that steals from the poor and gives to therich," we would hear it from the right, would we not? why is it that thoseterms which support the status quo are rarely erased in and by publicdebate? and who benefits from the erasure of radical concepts that work to*subvert* the status quo?let me say that i *do* have problems with some of these terms, and with themasculinist language practices of writers like althusser and jauss.(please also note that we doubtless have some translation problems going onhere too. english is dreadful this way.) but they are problems of a morecomplex nature. one thing that has bothered me about -ize verbs is thatthey infer a passive construction. which is to say, if i am to "make aproblematic of" something, who makes that problematic? the implicit answeris "the hegemony makes the problematic," but the *implicit* nature of theagency allows a failure to hold "the hegemony" *explicitly* accountable formaterial conditions etc etc. you can see that if i were to attend aconference dedicated to improving the language practices of the radicalleft, i would need, in order to communicate with my colleagues, to utilizesome terminology that would *complicate*, rather than *simplify*, theproblem at hand. simplification, so that al gore might use my innovationslater in his presidential campaign, would come *after* our paneldiscussion. i aver that there is a time/place for both language practices.i found fiona's original post quite interesting: articles thatproblematize reproductive choice. cool, i thought. what *are* thesocio-political/economic conditions that surround the emergence of theconcept called "choice." (i also thought, gee, i wonder if she really*means* to ask that? since terms like problematize, deconstruct,historicize have been wrecked. my own personal favorite for the Nails onChalkboard Award: "*essentially*, i told him to go to hell." no youdidn't. :>)let me close this dreadfully long post with an example. last week i readseveral student papers, many of which studied _the awakening_. severalmale students, and one female student, took as their thesis the assertionthat edna pontellier is a selfish, terrible mother who killed herself withno thought for her children. now, most of us on this list would probablyagree that this is an "ungenerous" (technical term) reading that has failedto -- WHAT? DISCUSS edna's choice? no. the readers here have failed toengage a *specific* kind of discussion, one that *problematizes* thepsycho-socio-political conditions of chopin and edna; and fails to*historicize* the psycho-socio-political conditions contributing to thereader's beliefs about "selfishness," "good mother," etc. without theterms that describe these analyses, i would be unable to understand wheremy students, and by extention myself, have failed.all best,kass fleisher~~~~~~~~~kass.fleisher @ colorado.eduhttp://spot.colorado.edu/~fleisher(site under construction)

<< I think we need to be aware that most words ending in -ize (includingmarginalize and historicize) are just academic-jargon ways of expressingsimple ideas, such as feeling excluded or trying to understand the past.When we choose -ize/jargon words rather than simple language, we're sayingwe prefer academese over a language that communicates widely to all women. >>I disagree completely. The words in dispute have very specific meanings thatcannot be translated into single simple words. For example "historicize"means to place into historical context, specificallysocial-economic-political structures and conditions as they have endured orchanged over time. There is no "simple" way you can state that without thespecific word "historicize" because it is a complex idea that challengescommon assumptions about the nature of history and human action."Problematize" is also very specific, as a previous poster noted.However, we do need to find ways to communicate with people who are notfamiliar with our language. That doesn't mean dropping the terms, but findinga way to teach the concepts behind them. We should not assume that people whodo not know our language don't want to learn it. They often do--they justdon't want us to treat them as if they must be stupid for not knowing italready.Georgia NeSmithgnesmith @ aol.com